2

I'm looking for a hint on this question:

Suppose $X$ is a metric space with at least one isolated point and $T:X\to X$ is a topologically transitive dynamical system. Show that $X$ is necessarily finite, and $X=O(x)$ for any point $x\in X$.

Any help is welcome. Thanks in advance.

Alp Uzman
  • 12,209
alans
  • 6,643
  • 1
  • 26
  • 51
  • 1
    You can start by stating the definition of "topologically transitive" and then using it somehow in conjunction with the "isolated point" assumption, such as seeing what happens when the isolated point interacts with the transitive definition. – Michael Jun 02 '18 at 04:51
  • @Michael I tried that and got that exits $k\geq 0$ such that $f^k(x)\neq x$, but I don't know what to do next. – alans Jun 02 '18 at 04:56
  • What is $x$? And what more can be said? Are you using the isolated point in both kinds of regions of the "transitive" definition? – Michael Jun 02 '18 at 04:57
  • @Michael x is isolated point. Yes. – alans Jun 02 '18 at 04:58
  • If $X$ consists of the single point $x$ then certainly $f^k(x)=x$ for all $k$, which would make your conclusion about existence of $k$ such that $f^k(x)\neq x$ false. Can you state the definition of "topologically transitive"? Then you can use that definition in conjunction with the isolated point to reach useful conclusions. – Michael Jun 02 '18 at 05:00
  • 1
    @Michael For every pair of non-empty open sets U and V in X, there is a non-negative integer n such that $f^n(U)∩V≠∅$. Here I took $U={x}$ and $V=X\setminus {x}$. – alans Jun 02 '18 at 05:03
  • So now, what if you take $V={x}$? And $U$ as any neighborhood about any point $y \neq x$. And/or keep $U={x}$ but choose another $V$. – Michael Jun 02 '18 at 05:11
  • So the desired result is false if you use "nonnegative" for your definition, but true if you use "positive" for your definition (see below). – Michael Jun 02 '18 at 06:17

3 Answers3

1

Here I am using the given definition of "topologically transitive" that for any two nonempty open sets $U, V$ in $X$ there is a nonnegative integer $k$ such that $T^k(U) \cap V$ is nonempty. (A different conclusion arises if we replace nonnegative with positive in this definition.)


Let $x^*$ be the isolated point. If you can show that the orbit of $x^*$ is finite, so $x^*$ eventually maps back to $x^*$, you can show that all points of $X$ are in that orbit and so the desired result is true.

However, the result is false in general. Here is a counter-example:

$$X = [0,1] \cup \{2\}$$ where "2" is the isolated point. Let $\{q_1, q_2, q_3, ...\}$ be a list of the rationals in $[0,1]$.

Define $T:X\rightarrow X$ by

$$ T(x) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 2 &\mbox{ if $x$ is an irrational in $[0,1]$} \\ q_1 & \mbox{ if $x=2$}\\ q_{k+1} & \mbox{ if $x=q_k$} \end{array} \right.$$

In particular we have for any irrational $r \in [0,1]$: $$ r \rightarrow 2 \rightarrow q_1\rightarrow q_2\rightarrow q_3\rightarrow ...$$

We want to show that for every two nonempty open subsets $U, V$ of $X$, there is a $k\geq 0$ such that $f^k(U)\cap V$ is nonempty. Note that every open set that contains a point in $[0,1]$ contains an infinite number of irrationals and rationals.

Let $U$ and $V$ be open subsets of $X$.

  • If both $U$ and $V$ contain $2$ then $2 \in U=T^0(U)$ and $2 \in V$ and we are done. [This uses $k=0$ which we can do from the nonnegative definition. If we use a $k>0$ definition, then this step does not hold.]

  • If $V$ contains $2$ but $U$ does not, then $U$ must contain an element of $[0,1]$ and so it must contain an irrational in $[0,1]$, which maps to 2 and we are done.

  • If $U$ contains $2$ but $V$ does not, then $V$ must contain a rational in $[0,1]$. But 2 eventually maps to all rationals in $[0,1]$ so we are done.

  • If neither $U$ nor $V$ contains $2$, then they both contain an infinite number of rationals in $[0,1]$. Let $q_k$ be any rational in $U$. Then $q_k$ eventually maps to all rationals $q_i$ such that $i \geq k$, and so it eventually maps to an element of $V$.

Michael
  • 26,378
  • I observe that the following link requires the integer $k$ to be positive not nonnegative, from which we can easily show the orbit of $x^*$ is finite and thus the desired result is true (so my above counter-example only works for hte definition as given, with $k\geq 0$, not $k>0$): http://mathworld.wolfram.com/TopologicallyTransitive.html – Michael Jun 02 '18 at 06:15
  • In my lecture notes it is said: 'for nonnegative'. – alans Jun 02 '18 at 06:18
  • In that case, what you are trying to prove is false. – Michael Jun 02 '18 at 06:21
  • 1
    Note that the issue of "positive" versus "nonnegative" is crucial as it impacts whether or not the isolated point $x^$ is required to eventually map back to itself. If $T^k(U) \cap V$ is required to be nonempty for some positive* $k$ then $x^$ eventually goes back to itself (take $U=V={x^}$) so its orbit must be finite, from which (using topologically transitive properties) $X$ must be equal to that orbit (since any point $y$ not on the orbit of $x^$ has a neighborhood that does not intersect the finite points of the orbit, but $x^$ will visit the neighborhood, a contradiction). – Michael Apr 24 '22 at 15:07
0

Michael provides a counterexample to the statement:

Suppose $X$ is a metric space with at least one isolated point and $T\colon X\to X$ is a topologically transitive dynamical system where $T$ is not necessarily continuous. Show that $X$ is necessarily finite, and $X=O(x)$ for any point $x\in X$.

But judging by the context of the exercise I assume that $T$ is supposed to be continuous, since this is the standard assumption for a dynamical system when a topology is involved. So I will provide a proof of the statement if $T$ continuous. Moreover, I will use the following definition of transitivity

A topological dynamical system $T: X\to X$ is called topologically transitive if for every pair $U, V\subseteq X$ of open sets there exists a $k\in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}$ such that $T^k(U) \cap V \neq \emptyset$.

As Micheal mentioned, it is enough to show that an isolated point is a periodic point. Let us do this now. Let $x$ be an isolated point of $X$ and set $$ \mathcal{X} = \{y\in X\mid \exists k\geq 0\colon T^k(y) = x\}. $$ Note that by transitivity $\mathcal{X}$ is dense in $X$. Let $\mathcal{C}$ denote the set of all connected components of $X$ with non-empty interior and $\mathcal{D}$ the set of all connected components of $X$ with empty interior. Since each $C\in \mathcal{C}$ is open we can use density of $\mathcal{X}$ to find a $y_C\in C\cap \mathcal{X}$ so that there exists a $k\geq 0$ such that $T^k(y_C) = x$. Now $T$ is continuous, so $T^k$ is continuous and since continuous functions map connected sets on connected sets we must have that $T^k(C) = \{x\}$. Note that we can apply the same argument for any $D\in \mathcal{D}$ with $D\cap\mathcal{X}\neq \emptyset$. So we can partition $X = A\cup B$ where $$ A = \{y\in X\mid \exists C\in\mathcal{C}\colon y\in C\text{ or }\exists D\in\mathcal{D}\colon D\cap\mathcal{X}\neq 0 \text{ and }y\in D\} $$ and $B = A^c$. Observe that both $A$ and $B$ are $T$-invariant and $B$ has empty interior (by transitivity). Thus we have two dynamical systems $T|_A$ and $T|_B$ which we can study separately. By the above connected-component-argument we conclude that $x$ is in the orbit of every element in $A$. In particular, we can find a $k\geq 0$ for $T(x)$ such that $T^{k+1}(x) = x$, so $x$ is a periodic point of $T|_A$. Since $B$ has non-empty interior, it cannot be open, in particular for every $\epsilon > 0$ there must be an element in $A$ in an $\epsilon$-neighborhood of $B$, otherwise this $\epsilon$-neighborhood of $B$ is $B$ itself. So finiteness of $A$ implies that $B$ is empty. From this it follows that $X$ is indeed finite and $O(x) = X$ for all $x\in X$.

  • Why do you want to impose the assumption that $T$ is continuous? – Michael Apr 23 '22 at 21:03
  • @Michael I think that's the standard definition for a topological dynamical system. Otherwise why put a structure on the space $X$ when the function $T$ does not even interact with that structure? –  Apr 23 '22 at 22:33
  • The definition given here (below link) does not mention continuity. Note also (from the comment chain) the considerable time I spent working with the OP and asking the OP to state the relevant definitions. Continuity was never mentioned. https://mathworld.wolfram.com/TopologicallyTransitive.html – Michael Apr 24 '22 at 14:31
  • @Michael The article that you link seems not very mathematically sound to me. What I wanted to say in my first comment is that the continuity of $T$ is part of the definition of a topological dynamical system: A topological dynamical system is a metric space $(X, d)$ together with a continuous map $T\colon X \to X$. –  Apr 26 '22 at 16:30
  • The phrase "topological dynamical system" was never used, but "topologically transitive dynamical system" was used. Embedding continuity into the definition of "topologically transitive" is fine; If that is wanted, that working definition should be stated (and the OP had plenty of opportunity to do so). Definitions can vary, for example the WolframMathworld definition on the link I gave does not require continuity. Not all functions used for topological systems are continuous, for example not all measurable functions are continuous (and measurability "interacts" with the topology). – Michael Apr 26 '22 at 16:46
  • Overall, your definition is fine, though it may be more objective to simply state that if continuity is desired in the definition, then another proof is needed, which is provided in your answer. Your answer says "Michael tries" which suggests there is some shortcoming or failure in my answer. Now I make mistakes all the time, and I am happy when my mistakes are pointed out to me, but in this case I do not think I made a mistake. I was operating on the working definitions that were provided by the OP, and which I also provided in my answer. – Michael Apr 26 '22 at 16:50
  • @Michael I would humbly suggest that the Wolfram definition is out of context (it doesn't provide any references to begin with); good alternatives would be https://encyclopediaofmath.org/wiki/Topological_transitivity and http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Topological_transitivity. I agree that giving clear definitions in the OP is better, but given the dynamical systems tag it's safe to assume that $T$ is meant to be continuous. In fact it's common in dynamics to use the word "transitive" for "topologically transitive". – Alp Uzman Apr 26 '22 at 19:13
  • Accordingly, the issue of "positive" v. "nonnegative" time disappears, as discussed here: https://math.stackexchange.com/q/4431241/169085 – Alp Uzman Apr 26 '22 at 19:15
  • @aaron It seems to me your proof is not complete; e.g. why is $\mathbb{Z}{\geq0}\to \mathbb{Z}{\geq0}$, $0\mapsto 0$, for $x\neq0$ $x\mapsto x-1$ not allowed? – Alp Uzman Apr 26 '22 at 20:40
  • @AlpUzman Because it is not transitive. For example there is no $k\geq 0$ such that $T^k({0}) = {1}$ if $T$ is the map you define. –  Apr 26 '22 at 21:11
  • @aaron Sure; my point is that if you use backward time it's not clear from your argument why you can't have branching. Alternatively you need that any point is in the orbit of $x$, along with $x$ with being in the orbit of any point. – Alp Uzman Apr 26 '22 at 21:19
  • I don't really know what you mean by branching to be honest. But in the definition of transitivity I have at hand the time is non-negative, and judging by a comment by OP on Michael's answer it is the same definition as the one I have. –  Apr 26 '22 at 21:22
  • @aaron By branching I'm referring to the fact that preimages of your isolated $x$ can eventually be more than singletons. Everything you wrote in the final paragraph of your answer between the words "transitivity" and "finite" applies to the example I gave, but like you said the example is not topologically transitive (nor finite). – Alp Uzman Apr 26 '22 at 21:40
  • No it does not apply fully to the example. The conclusion that $X$ is finite uses transitivity. –  Apr 27 '22 at 15:21
  • 1
    Why are all connected components of $X$ open? Take $X={0} \cup {1/n : n \in {1,2,3,...}}$. Then ${0}$ is a connected component of $X$ that is not open. – Michael Apr 28 '22 at 00:40
  • You are right, I edited my answer with a fix. At this point, I think my answer is a lot more messy than @AlpUzman 's so I'd suggest OP accept their answer. –  Apr 29 '22 at 21:27
0

Here is a shorter proof, essentially along the ideas of Michael and Aaron, and some further details.

Note: In an earlier version I have used the a priori stronger version of topological transitivity (which I call below "$\mathbb{Z}_{\geq1}$-TT"; the corresponding argument is ($\ast$)); to rectify the definitions and implications I am adding further details.

For reference purposes, the content of the discussion below correspond to Exr.1.2.3 and Exr.1.2.4 from Grosse-Erdmann & Manguillot's Linear Chaos (p.25).


First let us fix some definitions.

Let $X$ be a topological space, $T: X\to X$ be a continuous self-map of $X$. Denote by $\mathcal{T}(X)^\ast$ the collection of nonempty open subsets of $X$. For $Z\subseteq \mathbb{Z}_{\geq0}$, call $T$ topologically $Z$-transitive ($Z$-TT) if

$$\forall U,V\in\mathcal{T}(X)^\ast,\exists n=n(U\to V)\in Z: T^n(U)\cap V\neq \emptyset.$$

It's clear that if $Z_1\subseteq Z_2\subseteq\mathbb{Z}_{\geq0}$, then any $T$ that is $Z_1$-TT is also $Z_2$-TT.


Claim: Let $X$ be a Hausdorff ($\dagger$) topological space, $T:X\to X$ be continuous. Then the following are equivalent:

  1. $X$ is a finite set (with discrete topology) and $T$ is (set theoretically) transitive (hence $X$ is equal to the orbit of any point and $T$ is a homeomorphism).
  2. $X$ has an isolated point and $T$ is $\mathbb{Z}_{\geq1}$-TT.
  3. $X$ has an isolated point and $T$ is $\mathbb{Z}_{\geq0}$-TT.

Proof: (1$\implies$2) and (2$\implies$3) are clear.

(3$\implies$1) Let $x^\ast\in X$ be an isolated point. Then $\{x^\ast\}\subseteq X$ is both open and closed. Either $X=\{x^\ast\}$, in which case we are done, xor $X\setminus\{x^\ast\}$ is nonempty and open. Then by $\mathbb{Z}_{\geq0}$-TT there is an $m\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq0}$ such that $T^m(X\setminus \{x^\ast\})\cap\{x^\ast\}\neq\emptyset$. These two open sets are disjoint initially, so $m\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq1}$. Let $y\in X\setminus\{x^\ast\}$ be such that $T^m(y)=x^\ast$. $T^m$ is continuous, and $X\setminus\{x^\ast\}$ is open, so that there is a $U\in\mathcal{T}(X)^\ast$: $y\in U\subseteq X\setminus \{x^\ast\}$ and $T^m(U)=\{x^\ast\}$. Again by $\mathbb{Z}_{\geq0}$-TT there is an $n\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq0}$ such that $T^n(\{x^\ast\})\cap U\neq\emptyset$, so that $\mathcal{O}_{x^\ast}(T)=\{T^n(x^\ast)\,|\, n\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq0}\}$ is dense in $X$ and $T^n(x^\ast)\in U$, whence $T^p(x^\ast)=x^\ast$ for $p=m+n\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq1}$, that is, $x^\ast$ is a periodic point of $T$, and so its orbit is finite, hence closed. Thus

$$\mathcal{O}_{x^\ast}(T)=\overline{\mathcal{O}_{x^\ast}(T)}=X.$$

($\ast$)(2$\implies$1) Let $x^\ast\in X$ be an isolated point. Then by $\mathbb{Z}_{\geq1}$-TT there is an $a\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq1}$ such that $T^a(\{x^\ast\})\cap \{x^\ast\}\neq\emptyset$, so that $x^\ast$ is a $T$-periodic point, i.e. $\mathcal{O}_{x^\ast}(T)$ is finite, hence closed. Let $U\subseteq X$ be a nonempty open subset. Then again by $\mathbb{Z}_{\geq1}$-TT there is a $b\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq1}$ such that $T^b(\{x^\ast\})\cap U\neq\emptyset$. Thus $\mathcal{O}_{x^\ast}(T)$ is dense in $X$. Thus

$$\mathcal{O}_{x^\ast}(T)=\overline{\mathcal{O}_{x^\ast}(T)}=X.$$

($\dagger$) Singletons being closed is enough, i.e. $T_1$ (see e.g. In $T_1$ space, all singleton sets are closed?).


In the previous section we have shown that $\mathbb{Z}_{\geq0}$-TT is equivalent to $\mathbb{Z}_{\geq1}$-TT for continuous self-maps of Hausdorff spaces with an isolated point. In fact they are equivalent even without the assumption of the existence of an isolated point. It's interesting to note that for the below argument Hausdorffness is really needed, as opposed to the above statement.

Claim: Let $X$ be a Hausdorff topological space, $T:X\to X$ be a continuous self-map of $X$. Then $T$ is $\mathbb{Z}_{\geq1}$-TT iff $T$ is $\mathbb{Z}_{\geq0}$-TT.

Proof: After the statement in the previous section we may assume $X$ has no isolated points, thus any nonempty open subset has at least two distinct points. It suffices to prove that $\mathbb{Z}_{\geq0}$-TT implies $\mathbb{Z}_{\geq1}$-TT.

Let $U,V\in\mathcal{T}(X)^\ast$. By $\mathbb{Z}_{\geq0}$-TT there is an $m\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq0}$ such that $T^m(U)\cap V\neq\emptyset$, that is $W=U\cap T^{-m}(V)\in\mathcal{T}(X)^\ast$. Since $X$ has no isolated points there are $x,y\in W: x\neq y$. Since $X$ is Hausdorff, there are $R,S\in\mathcal{T}(X)^\ast$ such that

$$x\in R\subseteq W,\,\, y\in S \subseteq W,\,\, R\cap S=\emptyset.$$

By $\mathbb{Z}_{\geq0}$-TT, there is an $n\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq0}$ such that $T^n(R)\cap S\neq\emptyset$. Initially $R$ and $S$ are disjoint, so $n\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq1}$. Thus $\exists u\in R\subseteq W=U\cap T^{-m}(V): T^n(u)\in S\subseteq W=U \cap T^{-m}(V)$, that is, $u\in U, T^{p}(u)\in V$ for $p=m+n\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq1}$, i.e. $T^p(U)\cap V\neq\emptyset$.


In fact, repackaging the previous argument as an induction step one can show something stronger:

Claim: Let $X$ be a Hausdorff topological space, $T:X\to X$ be a continuous self-map. Then $T$ is $\mathbb{Z}_{\geq0}$-TT iff

$$\forall U,V\in\mathcal{T}(X)^\ast: \#(\{n\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq0}\,|\, T^n(U)\cap V\neq\emptyset\})=\infty.$$

In words, existence of a return time (say in $\mathbb{Z}_{\geq0}$) guarantees infinite returns. It is convenient to introduce some further notation; put

$$N^T(U\to V)=\{n\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq0}\,|\, T^n(U)\cap V\neq\emptyset\}$$

and call it the set of return times from $U$ to $V$.

Proof: We may again assume $X$ has no isolated points. Let $U,V\in\mathcal{T}(X)^\ast$. By $\mathbb{Z}_{\geq0}$-TT there is an $m\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq0}$ such that $T^m(U)\cap V\neq\emptyset$, that is $W=U\cap T^{-m}(V)\in\mathcal{T}(X)^\ast$. Note that $m+ N^T(W\to W)\subseteq N^T(U\to V)$ (where $m+ N^T(W\to W)=\{m+n\,|\, n\in N^T(W\to W)\}$). We'll show that $\#(N^T(W\to W))=\infty$.

As in the previous argument, there are $x_1,y_1\in W$ and $R_1,S_1\in\mathcal{T}(X)^\ast$ such that

$$x_1\in R_1\subseteq W,\,\, y_1\in S_1 \subseteq W,\,\, R_1\cap S_1=\emptyset.$$

By $\mathbb{Z}_{\geq0}$-TT, there is an $n_1\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq0}$ such that $T^{n_1}(R_1)\cap S_1\neq\emptyset$. Initially $R_1$ and $S_1$ are disjoint, so $n_1\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq1}$, whence $n_1\in N^T(W\to W)\cap \mathbb{Z}_{\geq1}$.

Put $W_1= W\cap T^{-n_1}(W)\in\mathcal{T}(X)^\ast$. Applying the previous paragraph to $W_1$ instead of $W$, there are $x_2,y_2\in W_1$ and $R_2,S_2\in\mathcal{T}(X)^\ast$ such that

$$x_2\in R_2\subseteq W_1,\,\, y_2\in S_2 \subseteq W_1,\,\, R_2\cap S_2=\emptyset.$$

By $\mathbb{Z}_{\geq0}$-TT, $\exists m_1\in N^T(W_1\to W_1)\cap \mathbb{Z}_{\geq1}$ and hence $n_2=n_1+m_1\in N^T(W\to W)\cap\mathbb{Z}_{>n_1}$. By induction ($W_2=W\cap T^{-n_2}(W), \cdots$ ) $N^T(W\to W)$ is thus infinite.

Alp Uzman
  • 12,209
  • Your proof seems to assume the “positive” definition of topological transitive (similar to the wolfram link I found years ago that you did not like) rather than “nonnegative”, in which case the result does not require continuity and is similar to the last comment in my answer. If there is some side result that says the two definitions are the same under continuity then that side result is not explicitly stated and its proof seems to be the main challenge of the problem. – Michael Apr 27 '22 at 23:57
  • @Michael I am indeed using the positive time version (for more general actions it's typically more convenient to have some time pass before a return). I had addressed this in the discussion I had linked in a comment above; using the nonnegative time version with continuity we can say e.g. $T^{-1}(U)$ is open and so there is a $c\in\mathbb{Z}{\geq0}$ such that $T^c({x^\ast})\cap T^{-1}(U)\neq \emptyset$, whence for $ b=c+1\in\mathbb{Z}{\geq1}: T^b({x^\ast})\cap U\neq\emptyset$. – Alp Uzman Apr 28 '22 at 02:33
  • @Michael Actually you were right; the argument I gave in the previous comment requires that $T^{-1}(U)$ be nonempty, so e.g. it would be true if $T$ were assumed to be onto. Still, the positive v. nonnegative time issue can be resolved; I will edit my answer. – Alp Uzman Apr 30 '22 at 17:03